Arguments for Homosexual Marriage: Logical, or No?

One of the most frustrating examples of the sad fact that we no longer learn logic in schools is the “debate” that’s been going on for the last few years about homosexuality.

Of course “debate” is used very generously here, as we have seen very few non-fallacious arguments put forth on this subject, on either side. I’ve talked a little bit about how “’cause the Bible said so” is a fallacy called “appeal to authority,” and requires some further premise (such as “the Bible is inerrant”) in order to succeed.

But what has the pro gay marriage camp got to say? Not a whole lot that isn’t strictly fallacious.

The discussion we should be having about homosexuality involves what I’ll call its relatively “moral-ness”, for lack of a better word, that is to say, discussion over whether or not it is moral.

Let’s break down each of the points presented in this article and see if we can uncover any arguments about that question.

Point 1: “Blame yourself.”

There may be other arguments to support the idea of blaming yourself, but the picture presented here presents an obvious fallacy by assuming heterosexual couples are intentionally causing the orientation of their children. Even if that were true, its not much of an argument, and tells us nothing about the issue.

Point 2: “Realize gay marriage is inevitable. Statistics show people’s views rapidly changing on the subject.”

This argument may be phrased as a peer-pressure fallacy: “The majority of people think that A is moral. Therefore A is moral.” This is obviously fallacious.

It could also be phrased as, “Behavior A will inevitably be sanctioned by the government. Therefore behavior A ought to be sanctioned by the government.” This is fallacious because it attempts to jump from how something IS to how something ought to be, a jump that requires additional premises.

Point 3: “Imagine how stupid you’ll look in 40 years.”

This argument is also twofold. First it makes the following argument: “Cause A is morally equivalent to cause B.” Why is this so? They are similar situations, yes, but are the morally interchangeable? This is a different question.

This point also tries to appeal to “looking stupid” as a normative force for action. I think we all know better than that.

Point 4: “Listen to Louise CK.”

Louise CK presents an argument (and a rather convoluted one) stating the usual argument that if things don’t affect you, you shouldn’t have any input on them. But the real argument that he’s making is deeper: he’s essentially asserting that there are no objective moral values and that therefore the only things that matter to people are the things that affect them directly. Well, I would like to see some arguments about why or how he thinks that there are no objective moral values. Indeed, that is the argument that needs to be had first, before we start talking about what is and what is not moral.

Point 5: “Let go of the idea that same-sex marriage is ruining the sanctity of marriage argument.”

This one is the most obviously fallacious. It states that “Because A is ruining the sanctity of marriage, B is not.” It essentially creates a false dichotomy.

Point 6: “Take a closer look at the Bible.”

There are three problems with this point. The first picture makes a very poor argument based on the (Protestant) idea that the entire text of the Bible is authoritative in the same way and with the same weight. Also because there is no citation there, I am able only to guess, but I believe he is referencing the Levitical code, which applied only to Levites. If that is the case, that would be irrelevant on top of being fallacious.

The second imagine makes the opposite mistake of the first. The first was rested under the assumption that the entire Bible was one long rule-book wherein each rule needed to be obeyed to the letter. The second makes the assumption that only the specific words of Jesus are authoritative. Such a reading of the Bible would be quite unhelpful.

Thirdly, both arguments miss the far more relevant passages. 1 Corinthians 6:9 is sort of hard to work around:

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders…”

Point 7: “Read their story and watch their video. Try not to cry.”

This whole point is an irrelevant and dismissible Appeal to Emotions. Now, dismissing such an appeal does not mean that I, or anyone else, is apathetic to the real sufferings of human beings; what it means is that appeals to emotion are not valid arguments, and amount to anecdotal evidence.

Point 8: “Take a look at the people in your own life. How many couples do you know that have stayed together as long as these couples?”

This too is irrelevant to the discussion at hand: “staying together” and the implication of fidelity and true love, is not an argument! Least of all is it an argument about the moral value of such actions.

Point 9: “Imagine their wedding.”

No argument here is really offered, so I’ll skip it.

Point 10: “Look how happy these people are.”

This too is an appeal to emotion, but its argumentative content might look something like this: “Whatever makes people happy is morally right.” Such an argument is not a priori true, and needs many, many premises to have any sort of intellectual weight.

Point 11: “Ask yourself if you could say no to these kids?”

This too is an appeal to emotion and carries little to no cognitive weight.

Point 12: “As yourself if you could say no to Neil Patrick Harris?”

This is just point 11 redressed in a different and cognitively indistinguishable manner.

Point 13: “Look at the consequences.”

The reason this isn’t fair is its use of hyperbole. Here’s a possible consequence: “A culture endorses a morally reprehensible behavior.” Now, if it turns out that homosexuality is is in fact morally reprehensible, that would be a consequence. But we haven’t had that discussion yet, so this “pie chart” is running on assumed premises.

Point 14: “Imagine the alternatives.”

I’m not really sure what sort of argument this is putting forth. If someone else is, please let me know.

——————————————————————————————————————–

So, did you detect any real arguments in that article? Neither did I!

If you support gay marriage and think you can do better, please feel free to post your arguments in the comments, but please make sure they are real arguments, they are not fallacies, and they are related to the actual question posed above.

Nations that don’t allow same-sex couples to marry are not adhering to Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as recognised by the United Nations, which states:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status…”

Under Article 16:

“(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”

It appears to me to be rather clear that if a man or woman of full age wants to willingly marry someone else of the same sex who is full age, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to and it goes against basic human rights that homosexual people should be actively discriminated against in this way.

Also, I do find it rather disappointing to see that someone is willing to go to such lengths to try and deconstruct the arguments for equal marriage like this.

A lot of these arguments in the article may not stand up in the cold and unforgiving light of pure logic – but that’s not really the point, is it? The points above are intended to appeal to the emotions, to allow others to better understand what is a genuine and often ignored injustice in our society through empathy.

For after all, It is our emotions that make us human – not logic. If we only operated on logic, we would have no empathy or compassion for others. We’d have no heart-warming stories of people putting their own lives at risk in order to save total strangers from life-threatening situations, nobody in the labs tirelessly working to try and find a cure for cancer when achieving such a thing is near impossible, no one would ever fall in love and certainly no one would ever vote Republican.

Instead, we’re not like that. We’re not mindless, boring robots that only think about what the logical reasons are for trying to do something that only aims to help bring more love and positivity into the world. We’re all human beings and many of us – including white, working class heterosexuals like me who stand to gain absolutely nothing from equal marriage, in theory – care enough about our friends and family and colleagues and leaders and fellow citizens who are gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender or whatever to want to see them have everything that the majority have and so often take for granted.

If only a truly logic-based argument for gay marriage is going to satisfy you, fair enough. I can’t change your mind. But if that’s really the case, I’m glad that I am fortunate enough to have many people in my life who aren’t like that at all.

As Magnificent Geoff writes, “If only a truly logic-based argument for gay marriage is going to satisfy you, fair enough”.

It should be highlighted then, that at the start of that post, he gives exactly that argument in referring to basic human rights. That is a very sound, and logical argument to stop blocking marriage for all consenting adults.

The article in no way deconstructs marriage as a way of arguing against it, but as a tool to help defenders of same-sex marriage, argue on logical grounds, and also argue on moral grounds (which is important to be able to argue on the moral grounds that anti-gay arguments are making. Today, while many people are starting to change their opinion on gay marriage, most still believe it is immoral, but should be legal..but to truly win, we need to convince people why homosexuality is morally acceptable.

Further, your reply to the Human rights convention has no appeal, because it clearly defines marriage as between “men & women” just saying…

The article in no way deconstructs marriage as a way of arguing against it, but as a tool to help defenders of same-sex marriage, argue on logical grounds, and also argue on moral grounds (which is important to be able to argue on the moral grounds that anti-gay arguments are making. Today, while many people are starting to change their opinion on gay marriage, most still believe it is immoral, but should be legal..but to truly win, we need to convince people why homosexuality is morally acceptable.

Further, your reply to the Human rights convention has no appeal, because it clearly defines marriage as between “men & women” just saying…

@Magnificent Geoffery
It is not rewarding to say “Nations that don’t allow same-sex couples to marry are not adhering to Article 2 of the Universal Declartaion of Human Rights as recognised by the United Nations,…” because you are assuming that all nations that do not allow for same-sex marriage are affiliated with the United Nations. What I assume you meant, is that states within the United States (which is affiliated, and in fact a part of the U.N.) as well as other regions similar in this regard are not adhering, and thus betraying U.N. common “law”. I must briefly mention, that I say “law” becuase the U.N. does not have any “laws”. If the U.N. truly had laws, they would have to be enforced through external sanctions, and they are not. In any case, Article 2, I feel, is not as clear to myself as it is to you. I believe it is infered that: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration ‘as they are written’.”. That being said, when I look at Article 16, I see: “Menandwomen of full age…”, not: “Men and also Woman, being two completely seperate and individual entities in the prospect of marriage,…”. Perhaps what I am trying to say stated more clearly: “Men and women…” here is used as a kind of conjunction, refering to a couple, being two, one of any man (of legal age, etc., etc.), and one of any of the group of women (of legal age, etc., etc.). Therefore, I see a very clear reason (according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) why same-sex marriage should not be allowed.

In your next paragraph, you state your dissappointment with the author and how you feel he tries desperately to deconstruct the arguments for “equal” marriage. I would say first this, I do know the author (if that means anything to you), and I believe him when he says “…I am a believing Chirstian who wants to walk with God…” (From ‘The Problems of Protestantism’ page 1). Secondly, I was under this impression that all beliefs worthy of holding should be subjected to scrutiny, and that doing so was the entire point of this page/forum/website. Therefore, we must scrutinize the beliefs we hold. And in this case we are scrutinizing the morality of same sex marriage. What is our tool for scrutinization of these beliefs that so many hold dear? It is none other than the cold and un-forgiving light of pure logic. And in response to your question, yes! Actually, logic is the whole point of this page/forum/website thing! Otherwise, we would have been passing around the trollolols for a double digit amount of posts about meaningless topics. But, alas, this is not Facebook, or any other kind of nonsensical social media site. (Though I would venture to guess that’s where 9/10 of these pictures were originally pulled from.)

Along the same piece, but in a different scale, I agree with you that emotions do make us human. (So I feel little need to present evidence supporting this perspective.) But that is not to say that emotion is the ONLY thing that makes us human. Without emotion we would become mere robots indeed, but without logic (reason), man would become a beast. So, it is not only in emotion, or logic that the manifestation of our being is presented, but in the joining and balance of these two points. (Give me a little more of the time I no longer have and I’m sure I could name at least a few respectable philosophers that would agree with my position.)

And for your last point, stating “If only a truly-logic based argument for gay marriage is going to satisfy you, fair enough. I can’t change your mind. But if that’s the case…” yada yada yada. Changing minds, is not the point. The point here, as well as in all philosophy, is not so much in our changing of your mind, but in your changing of your mind. I feel that you started to lash out a bit (at the author) because you simply misunderstood the point of the article, and perhaps philosophy in general.

For number thirteen, you state that a consequence of allowing gay marriage causes “A culture endorses a morally reprehensible behavior”. Yet, you do not back that assertion with objective, verifiable evidence. In fact, there is proof that denying gay marraige is actually harmful to society. According to psychology today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201003/new-study-suggests-bans-gay-marriage-hurt-mental-health-lgb-people) “The study found that Psychiatric Disorders, defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV, increased significantly between waves 1 and 2 among LGB respondents living in states that banned gay marriage for the following outcomes: any mood disorder (36.6% increase), generalized anxiety disorder (248.2% increase), any alcohol use disorder (41.9% increase), and psychiatric comorbidity (36.3% increase). In other words, there was more than a doubling in anxiety disorders among LGB people in states that passed anti-gay marriage laws.”. Furthermore, a moral, by defintion, is a subjective construct. According to Merriam Webster, a moral is “a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior “. And while there may be universal truths, a moral is not necessarily one, at least until you back it up. Otherwise if one believed that all purple socks were evil and needed to be burned would be as important and reasonable as another person’s belief that it is wrong to kill a person that is wrong to kill the innocent without just cause.

I condone you for your efforts to use logic. However, perfect logic based on false claims leads to perfectly false results. Remember that scene from Monty Python where Bedimere was able to “prove” that the woman was a witch? His reasoning was sound, it was his assertions that were faulty.

While you try to use logic to disseminate what you believe to be logical fallacies, you start from a position of taking them literally when they are not meant to be and in turn create your own fallacy. For example, on point 1, the chalkboard sign. I doubt the authors intention was to say that straight people are literally to blame by intentionally creating gay babies but rather the point is the opposite. People have no control over their or any others sexual orientation so therefore it is unfair that they are denied a basic civil liberty over that fact. Points 4, 5, 6, 13 are also not intended literally. Ever hear of sarcasm much? On the supposedly irrelevant “appeals to emotion” on points 7-12, these are meant to illustrate the direct consequences of denying people something that is considered a fundamental right (at least in the USA) making it very relevant in a discussion on policy. The true argument of these examples is that if a policy has the effect of disenfranchising a large set of the population it should be abolished. Well, despite the poor understanding of the arguments on the subject, I do applaud your attempt at using logic to look at this debate. Nice try, but not really.